Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MagnetoSound]

Hello Barry,


The only problem that I can see with this poster is that it seeks to communicate it's message by issuing a negative command to the reader. And it does this without incentive.

Anybody that has kids will know that it is much harder to get them to STOP doing something, than it is to promote a positive response - if you prohibit a particular act it simply grows more attractive. Reward a positive, on the other hand, and the benefits are known to increase exponentially.

In fact, this psychology is just as effective when communicating with adults. The rewards of positive behaviour always motivate more strongly than the threat of punishment. That is why successful companies motivate their workforce with the chance of promotion rather than by threatening pay cuts.

The command made here, to STOP BEING AFRAID, is neither incentivised nor justified within the message itself and is  undermined by this ommission.


WHY should we stop being afraid? What do we have to gain?


In other words, you need to offer a better way.


So, in this spirit, I offer the following alternative version of the same message (it is in no way intended to apply solely to the Americans here - insert your own country of birth as necessary):



I WANT YOU TO BE MORE UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATIVE OF OTHER AMERICANS,


OF OTHER RELIGIONS,

OF OTHER CLASSES,

OF OTHER NATIONS


AND SPEAK OUT!


YOU'RE AMERICANS FIRST.

ACT LIKE IT!

YOU'LL FEEL MUCH BETTER!




If you take this approach, I guarantee you will find a more receptive audience. Of course, you'll never convince those who simply will not be told what to do.  

[PRobb]

Fenris Wulf wrote on Mon, 04 October 2010 21:35

PRobb wrote on Mon, 04 October 2010 15:22 Does the name Joe McCarthy mean anything to you? If Joe McCarthy is the worst villain you can come up with, you need to try harder.

He was pretty bad. And a fairly recent example of a full frontal attack on free speech.

[Barry Hufker]

MagnetoSound wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 02:29

Hello Barry, The only problem that I can see with this poster is that it seeks to communicate it's message by issuing a negative command to the reader. And it does this without incentive. Anybody that has kids will know that it is much harder to get them to STOP doing something, than it is to promote a positive response - if you prohibit a particular act it simply grows more attractive. Reward a positive, on the other hand, and the benefits are known to increase exponentially. In fact, this psychology is just as effective when communicating with adults. The rewards of positive behaviour always motivate more strongly than the threat of punishment. That is why successful companies motivate their workforce with the chance of promotion rather than by threatening pay cuts. The command made here, to STOP BEING AFRAID, is neither incentivised nor justified within the message itself and is  undermined by this ommission. WHY should we stop being afraid? What do we have to gain? In other words, you need to offer a better way. So, in this spirit, I offer the following alternative version of the same message (it is in no way intended to apply solely to the Americans here - insert your own country of birth as necessary): I WANT YOU TO BE MORE UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATIVE OF OTHER AMERICANS, OF OTHER RELIGIONS, OF OTHER CLASSES, OF OTHER NATIONS AND SPEAK OUT! YOU'RE AMERICANS FIRST. ACT LIKE IT! YOU'LL FEEL MUCH BETTER! If you take this approach, I guarantee you will find a more receptive audience. Of course, you'll never convince those who simply will not be told what to do.

Dan,

You obviously have done marketing.  You make a good point.

Barry

[MagnetoSound]

You're too kind, Barry. I just work hard at being a good parent - sometimes I don't know when to stop.  



Dan

[compasspnt]

Raisin' kids, are ya?

[bblackwood]

compasspnt wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 20:00

Raisin' kids, are ya?

*groan*

[Hallams]

......and raisin bread?

[Edvaard]

I don't know if there's much currant-cy left in these ripe puns.

Not that I give a fig, but there might be some with fructose intolerance reading all this, so I wonder if we should pear things down a bit.

In any case, we are all talking through our fears and phobias here.

Orange'a glad?

[Fenris Wulf]

PRobb wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 15:26

Fenris Wulf wrote on Mon, 04 October 2010 21:35 PRobb wrote on Mon, 04 October 2010 15:22 Does the name Joe McCarthy mean anything to you? If Joe McCarthy is the worst villain you can come up with, you need to try harder. He was pretty bad. And a fairly recent example of a full frontal attack on free speech.

Actually, McCarthy never attacked free speech. He didn't go after people for believing in Communism, he went after them for being card-carrying members of the Communist Party, an organization controlled by Soviet Russia, whose members were required to swear a loyalty oath to Moscow. While some of his accusations were irresponsible, he was essentially proven right by the disclosure of the Venona papers.

No Party member went to jail for belonging to the Party, although a few of them served brief sentences for contempt of court. Those who were blacklisted by Hollywood were soon working again under assumed names, thanks to "fellow travelers" in the industry.

Today's blacklist of conservative viewpoints, both in Hollywood and in higher education, is far more effective than any former blacklist of Communists. But I don't see you crying about it.

There are Nobel Peace Prize winners who did more damage to the country than Joe McCarthy.

[Hallams]

Fenris Wulf wrote on Wed, 06 October 2010 14:41

PRobb wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 15:26 Fenris Wulf wrote on Mon, 04 October 2010 21:35 PRobb wrote on Mon, 04 October 2010 15:22 Does the name Joe McCarthy mean anything to you? If Joe McCarthy is the worst villain you can come up with, you need to try harder. He was pretty bad. And a fairly recent example of a full frontal attack on free speech. Actually, McCarthy never attacked free speech. He didn't go after people for believing in Communism, he went after them for being card-carrying members of the Communist Party, an organization controlled by Soviet Russia, whose members were required to swear a loyalty oath to Moscow. While some of his accusations were irresponsible, he was essentially proven right by the disclosure of the Venona papers. No Party member went to jail for belonging to the Party, although a few of them served brief sentences for contempt of court. Those who were blacklisted by Hollywood were soon working again under assumed names, thanks to "fellow travelers" in the industry. Today's blacklist of conservative viewpoints, both in Hollywood and in higher education, is far more effective than any former blacklist of Communists. But I don't see you crying about it. There are Nobel Peace Prize winners who did more damage to the country than Joe McCarthy.

"Before the outbreak of hostilities, General Howard held a council to try to convince Joseph and his people to relocate. Joseph finished his address to the General, which focused on human equality, by expressing his "[disbelief that] the Great Spirit Chief gave one kind of men the right to tell another kind of men what they must do."


.......I want you to act like Cheif Joseph of the Nez Perce.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Joseph

[PRobb]

Fenris Wulf wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 23:41

Actually, McCarthy never attacked free speech. He didn't go after people for believing in Communism, he went after them for being card-carrying members of the Communist Party, an organization controlled by Soviet Russia, whose members were required to swear a loyalty oath to Moscow. While some of his accusations were irresponsible, he was essentially proven right by the disclosure of the Venona papers.

Wow.
That is some serious revisionist history.
McCarthy ran a witch hunt. He was judge, jury and executioner. Being named by his committee meant the end of your career. If your name appeared in Red Channels, it meant the end of your career. If some anonymous somebody said they saw you talking to a "known communist" 30 years ago, it meant you showed up in Red Channels, and that was the end of your career.

[Jay Kadis]

Fenris Wulf wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 20:41

Today's blacklist of conservative viewpoints, both in Hollywood and in higher education, is far more effective than any former blacklist of Communists. But I don't see you crying about it.

What utter nonsense.   How many conservatives can you name that have had their careers destroyed by Hollywood and higher education?

Repeating Rove propaganda does not make it true.

[Fenris Wulf]

PRobb wrote on Wed, 06 October 2010 14:59

If your name appeared in Red Channels, it meant the end of your career. If some anonymous somebody said they saw you talking to a "known communist" 30 years ago, it meant you showed up in Red Channels, and that was the end of your career.

This does not constitute government suppression of free speech. It was a private blacklist of Communists and Communist sympathizers, people who were likely to use their positions to spread party-line Soviet propaganda. Employers refused to hire these people, and they were right to do so.

The Communists wanted to conceal their Party membership and obtain jobs by fraud. When they were exposed, they screamed bloody murder and invoked "freedom of speech," something that did not exist under Communism.

Almost nobody, including actual Communists, had their careers destroyed as you claim. Their friends took care of them and got them jobs. Friendly witnesses who testified before HUAC did have their careers destroyed.

Today, it is nearly impossible for an openly conservative professor to obtain tenure. Young people graduate from college without ever being exposed to a serious conservative viewpoint. It is just as difficult for a conservative to get a screenplay or teleplay produced. Entertainment and higher education are solidly controlled by liberal clique, who think they're entitled to get revenge for "McCarthyism" by doing the same to conservatives.

"Free speech for me but not for thee." That seems to be what liberals are about.

[PRobb]

Fenris- there is so much wrong with that post I'd have to type a novel length response to correct it.

You should read some history.

[Fenris Wulf]

I've read the same books you have and some you haven't. I don't think Joe McCarthy was spotless, but neither was he the kind of monster he is portrayed as. Eventually he sabotaged himself by making wild accusations and was no longer taken seriously.

You say you're concerned about free speech. Does it bother you that you are not free to speak disrespectfully toward a certain religion, because its adherents will hunt you down and kill you, and any publisher or media outlet that gives you a platform will have its offices bombed? Or that our leaders, instead of defending our rights, are contemplating laws against "defamation of religion" modeled on those in Europe?

You see, there is "censorship" and then there is censorship.